PPI Small Claim?

I'm not sure what you wanted to achieve by requesting proof you had not applied for PPI. Are you looking to take criminal action against them for fraudulently charging you for something you had not requested? If so, I doubt it would be successful, as they would say that it was a mistake rather than intentional.

It seems pointless to sue them over the mis-sold PPI as they have already refunded the money, though perhaps you could get the lost interest on the amount as well if it is not a trivial amount.

In the same way it was a mistake with tens of thousands of other people

The intention is to rub their nose in the shit and recover all of my costs incurred in resolving this matter. I took out the credit card purely to see if they mis-sold me PPI (based on a neighbour's experience). They did. It was not a mistake - it was part of systematic misselling I asked them why they had included the PPI - they said it was because I had ticked the box on the original form. This was a lie. I then sought the SADR as above - the sole reason was to prove that they had missold the PPI - and then lied to me. This was proven. They initially refused to refund my payments - it was only when they admitted that they had no proof that I had bought PPI and I had complained to the FSO did they refund the payments.

If I had not spent the ten pounds, I could not prove that they had missold it. I want the ten pounds back - as simple as that.

The matter was resolved before you incurred any costs. "Rubbing their nose in it" is not a legitimate legal objective.

So it was a deliberate "sting" on your part. I wonder therefore why you needed to request the application form if you do not intend to do anything further with it, seeing that you knew full well what was on it.

I don't see that you have any legal basis for its return. You gave the money willingly in return for a service that they fulfilled. Unlike the PPI, you definitely requested that service and it was not mis-sold.

ISTM that the most you could expect to get out of the situation is an admission that they "mistakenly" charged you for a service that you had not requested, but which they later "mistakenly" claimed that you had requested while refunding the money. If such a letter is worth the 10 it cost you to get the evidence, it is money well spent. If not, then not.

I don't see why he could not demand the £10 back, if it was reasonably necessary as part of proving his claim that he had not requested PPI.

And like many things, it can be the principle of the matter at stake, rather than the money value of the sum involved - particularly if £10 represents a significant sum relative to the total value of the sum claimed. My Dixons claim is heading steadily towards a final hearing because they refuse to pay my costs in full (only a small amount of "goodwill" instead), when of course it is not the money value of those costs at stake, but the principle of the matter of not allowing them to think they can waste my time without paying for it.

The matter was *not* resolved before I incurred any costs - why do you say that?

They said that I had applied on the application form for the insurance. That was a lie. I then had to request a copy of the form - and pay 10 pounds - in order for them to admit that I had not requested it.

They refused to refund the charges and said that I had requested the PPI. I needed to prove that they were lying when they said that I had requested it on the form.

I *had to* pay the ten pounds in order to get them to admit that they had mis-sold the insurance - and for them to then refund the charges.

Absolutely spot on - apart for "he".

(I am Missyoung - not even Missold :-)

In your OP you stated: " The credit card company have paid back the PPI charges - "as a gesture" - no admission of mis-selling "

You are now stating that they did *not* refund your money until after you forced them to admit that they mis-sold the PPI.

Which version of the events is the truth, and why are you changing your story?

What on earth are you talking about?

Is it usual to accuse someone of lying just because you have had trouble understanding basic English?

Feel free to point out why the you think that the two sentences are mutually exclusive; and then feel free to point out why you think I have changed my story and why on earth I would want to do that.

It would not be to make you look stupid as you have managed that on your own.

"The credit card company have paid ....." gives no indication of timescales. It could have been yesterday for all you know - or perhaps two years ago.

It was however only when I requested the SADR and they realised that they had no proof that the PPI had been sought and I was pursuing them that they paid up

- they originally refused to do so.

I am sorry if I used some rather long words in the original post; however I see that others understood it.

Have I really?

Here are your two statements, verbatim:

Statement 1 The credit card company have paid back the PPI charges - "as a gesture" - no admission of mis-selling

Statement 2 I *had to* pay the ten pounds in order to get them to admit that they had mis-sold the insurance - and for them to then refund the charges.

The first clearly states that they paid up without admitting they mis-sold, and the second clearly states that they did not pay until after they had admitted mis-selling.

I can assure you that I have no trouble understanding basic English - especially the meaning of the word "then" in your second statement.

Incidentally, I did not accuse you of lying. I asked which of the two contradictory statements was the truth and why you changed your story (which I have illustrated you clearly have). Perhaps it is yourself who has trouble understanding basic English?

Thanks for sensible comments.

However, I do disgagree with your comment re "setting them up".

I suspected that they were blatantly misselling PPI based on experiences of neighbour. I wanted to prove that that was the case so that I could complain to the FSO; this in itself. would cost the company money - and almost certainly did.

I actually told the FSO that I had taken the card with the sole purpose of testing the company and their procedures. What I did was thorough - the FSO accepted all of my evidence and concluded that I had been missold. There was no mention or implied criticism of what I had done.

Why do you think people should not do that?

Do you think we should just roll over and let such companies piss all over people?

te:

Yes, so it was a set-up! If I understand you correctly, you had no reason to apply for this particular credit card other than to test your hypothesis that they were systematically mis-selling.

I should also point out that you have not in fact "proven" anything that was not already apparent.

There can be no criticism of what you have done.

Not at all. I support your actions. But what I am saying is that the court will almost certainly not recognise your investigatory role, and so if you were asking them to be sympathetic to your inconvenience or loss of time, and compensate you for it financially, it would probably not help to let them know that you fully expected such inconvenience and loss of time at the outset, and could have avoided it, with no harm to your interests, by not applying for the credit card in the first place.

My original post:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I want to recover the ten pounds as a matter of principle - perhaps plus a nominal twenty pounds for my costs in proving my point and getting the money back from them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am certain about wanting the ten pounds - I am not certain about extra.

I was sounding people out about anything extra - hence the "perhaps" for a nominal twenty quid for letters and time.

I am more than happy to go for the ten pounds only.

The sentence you wrote means that they refunded the charges *after* admitting they mis-sold. The word that stipulates that that was the order of events is the word "then" in your second statement (4th word from the end).

I see you are a person who is only interested in opinions that she agrees with.

I have now looked back to see how you could have jumped to the wrong conclusion.

You have used later statements I made in order to try to justify what you have earlier believed and stated.

In your post at 15:15 on 11/07 you clearly stated:

"The matter was resolved before you incurred any costs."

Feel free to explain why you had already jumped to that conclusion based on what I had said prior to that time.

I trust that you can do that.

The problem is, that once you had jumped to that incorrect conclusion, you were then looking for the slightest way of (mis)interpreting what I had later said in order to reinforce your original incorrect assumption.

Correlation and causation, closely related to confounding variables, is the incorrect assumption that because something correlates, there is a causal relationship.

te:

--­-------------------------------------

--­------------------------------------

As I say, you should certainly be able to get the £10, and you could claim a sum for disbursements (like paper, postage stamps, etc.), but it's quite unlikely that you'd be able to recover any allowance for time.

You began by stating that your PPI payments had been refunded, but without any admission that they had been mis-sold. You went on in the same OP to state that you made a subject request in order to get evidence that it *had* been mis-sold, and your main gripe *still* appears to be that although they have refunded your money, they did not admit liability.

Any reading of those two statements would conclude that the subject access was requested after their "no blame" refund and was for the sole purpose of getting them to admit blame.

See above.

I have also posted two statements you made that are quite clearly contradictory. If you failed to explain the events clearly then you could simply have corrected the erroneous statement when I invited you to do so instead of trying to argue (as you are still doing) that it is myself who has failed to understand what you wrote.

I can assure you that if anything, my comprehension of written English is above average. In your case I appear to be guilty of basing my understanding on what you wrote rather than what you meant.

On your main question, feel free to pursue recovery of your 10 to the full limit of the law - you are certainly legally entitled to do so. You are however likely to discover the same as countless people have discovered before - that litigation over "principles" or in order to spite someone is an expensive business, and can end up taking over your life.

You should consider the meaning of the term "de minimis non curat lex," and decide whether a judge is likely to be impressed by a claim for 10.

IMO it is not worth risking a magnitude more in order to recover such a paltry sum. There are people who have ended up losing their home and their life savings over similar trivialities. Just for starters, you have to pay about 10 times as much just to issue a claim - and that's just the start of the bleed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­-------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------­------------------------------------

Thanks - I will let you know how I get on.

I see that you couldn't.

However, thank you for your limited "contribution" if I may call it that.

I came to these groups to seek advice and discuss the issues I had raised.

You very quickly jumped in and made a mistake when you said that: "The matter was resolved before you incurred any costs." This was quite incorrect. I queried why you had made that incorrect assumption - and you immediately responded by accusing me of lying.

Fortunately other people had a positive contribution to make, so my time here has not been totally wasted.

If I am the first person who has ever had difficulty interacting with you and your social skills - then I apologise for my own shortcomings. If however, you are regularly misunderstood by other people - it is something for you to ask yourself: "Why?"

Given that you have nothing to contribute - there is no need to reply - unless you just want to have the last word. Again, thanks to those who have discussed the issues raised in a grown up fashion.

At the root of the matter was Cynic's understanding that you had incurred the £10 cost after they had offered to settle the case. The structure of your first post strongly suggested that was the case, even if you did not actually say that explicitly. In my view, even on very close examination and with the strictest reading, a lot is left to inference and so your post withstands both interpretations - which is why I covered both possibilities in my second post in this thread.

Lol. You are undoubtedly rather abrasive in your approach.